... because it doesn't expect to have to pay, that's why.
To me, the reason is obvious. When the Supreme Court threw out the verdict from the original trial, they did so because of 2 mistakes by the trial judge that involved the most pivotal evidence provided by Suen's attorneys.
1. That Weidner said that Stanley Ho said that the Beijing meeting would be influential. That's heresay, and it's in-admissable.
2. That the judge should have instructed the jury to assume that Chinese officials were following local laws... the whole POINT of Suen's arguments was that Beijing was calling the shots and CIRCUMVENTING local authority.
Add to those points the fact that Sands already paid the Hong Kong businessmen who WERE instrumental in LVS getting the macau license... businessmen who had nothing to do with Richard Suen... and you've got your reason why LVS is confident in their decision not to reserve funds for a verdict in the Suen trial.
To whatever extent that this trial pushes the stock lower, it simply presents investors with a more favorable entry point, IMHO.
Hey dimwit, since when is the word of a CEO hearsay ?
You are nothing but a stupid shill.
Keep up with your BS.
Every idiot especially you is entitled to their opinion but no one is entitled to their own version of the facts.
The elephant in the room to me in this case is... Macau has its own laws and government. Can a US Court rule Macau is not a separate government and state with its own laws and then assume violating Macau and China law is a standard operating procedure to accomplish doing business? Here's how Macau got its current status as one of two Special Administrative Regions protected by China:
Macau, also spelled Macao, is one of the two special administrative regions of the People's Republic of China (PRC), the other being Hong Kong. Macau lies on the western side of the Pearl River Delta across from Hong Kong to the east, bordered by Guangdong province to the north and facing the South China Sea to the east and south. The territory's economy is heavily dependent on gambling and tourism, but also includes manufacturing.
A former Portuguese colony, Macau was administered by Portugal from the mid-16th century until 1999, when it was the last remaining European colony in China. Portuguese traders first settled in Macau in the 1550s. In 1557, Macau was rented to Portugal by the Chinese empire as a trading port. The Portuguese administered the city under Chinese authority and sovereignty until 1887, when Macau became a colony of the Portuguese empire. Sovereignty over Macau was transferred back to China on 20 December 1999. The Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration and the Basic Law of Macau stipulate that Macau operate with a high degree of autonomy until at least 2049, fifty years after the transfer.
Under the policy of "one country, two systems", the PRC's Central People's Government is responsible for the territory's defense and foreign affairs, while Macau maintains its own legal system, police force, monetary system, customs policy, and immigration policy. Macau participates in many international organizations and events that do not require members to possess national sovereignty.
According to The World Factbook, Macau has the second highest life expectancy in the world. In addition, Macau is one of the very few regions in Asia with a "very high Human Development Index", ranking 23rd or 24th in the world in 2007 (with Japan being the highest in Asia; the other Asian countries/regions within the "very high HDI" category are Taiwan, Hong Kong, Brunei, Qatar, Singapore, and South Korea).
Unless it can be proven that Beijing authorities had a DIRECT influence on the awarding of Sand's sub-concession, the court must instruct the jury to assume that the structure of law and the Macau SAR's autonomy was adhered to. That is standard legal practice in U.S. courts when cases involving foreign governments are involved.
The only way Suen's attorneys can argue otherwise is via direct testimony from the officials involved... and they aren't going to be testifying.
The failure of the trial judge to instruct the jury in that manner was a MAJOR issue in the initial trial.
Thx mba. As a side note, I was always curious why on CCTV here in the USA, their news stories never seem to cover anything going on in Macau. I watched throughout CNY for stories on visitors to Macau, festivities in Macau, etc. and never once saw such a story. Almost like CCTV doesn't consider Macau to be relevant, or even part of China. Is this just my misunderstanding or is this maybe true? Regards.
Don't like these unprofessional mistakes. It's one mistake after another. On the other side, the only person who can testify against Adelson is himself thus the memory loss. No attorney will get any info out of him that could be used against him. I'm calling it the Schults defense. I'll be glad when all this is over and hope he doesn't create more debacles later.